Did you know that Green Street Green had its own fire brigade? The founder and chief member of the fire brigade was Mr Frank Whittaker in the early 1900s. His grandson, Mr Barrie Newman, still lives in Green Street Green and was a member of the Green Street Green Village Society committee for many years .
The following is an article from the Daily Mail in the 1950s. It is believed that the photograph was taken in 1917: (Newspaper clipping kindly provided by Margaret Lawrence)
0 Comments
The Christmas Fair was popular again with Sound Alliance & Father Christmas!
The raffle raised over £1800 - all proceeds in aid of the Greenwood Community Centre charity. List of prizes, sponsor and winners here A slide show of photos of the event can be viewed here Our Christmas tree was kindly donated by Chelsfield Turf (see below)
Her funeral took place at St Mary's Church, World's End Lane on Tuesday 28 November 2017 and was packed out with family and friends. Family members gave fond reminiscences of her full and varied life from childhood in the countryside to her six decades in Green Street Green.
Margot Rohan - Village Society Secretary 7 No Trumps, Wizard of O’s and Jean’s Jesters were among some of the teams who recently vied to be local champions at the GSG Village Society Quiz. Held on the 23 September 2017 at the Greenwood Community Centre, the quiz consisted of nine rounds of general knowledge questions that challenged even the most hardened “quiz wiz”.
During the half time break teams munched on some tasty fish and chips, supplied by Seabream in the Crescent, whilst trying to decipher a pictograph featuring 70 rock and roll bands, and competing in a round of heads and tails. With one round of the quiz to go two teams were neck and neck, and in a nail-biting finish, Gaye Bikers on Acid were crowned the winners, with one point separating them from second place, Famous Five. The Events Committee would like to congratulate all those who took part, the winners, and Margaret Lawrence, who was a fabulous Madame Quizmaster and kept energy and excitement levels high throughout. Please look out for further events in 2018 and, as always, we welcome any suggestions or ideas for future activities. Eleanor McIntosh, Entertainment Committee 10 June 2017 St Christopher's Wild West Summer Fair Another beautiful sunny event with a breeze to keep things cool... The Village Society did roaring business throughout the day with Splat the Rat, Buzzwire and the Treasure Map: 4 June 2016 Photos taken by local resident Barrie Newman (member of Greenwood Camera Club) 6 June 2015 St Christopher's Wild West Fair and Food Festival saw over 3,000 people this year! The Green Street Green Village Society stall was one of very few stalls with games - a Treasure Map and Splat the Rat, both of which proved very popular. It was altogether a successful day for all concerned. There were several dance exhibitions, including line dancing. The music was a little overpowering but added atmosphere.
Although the majority of those attending the fair appeared to come from further afield, there were at least two Green Street Green residents who were unaware of the Village Society, so we still need to increase awareness, as villagers need to know the Society is there to raise local issues and ensure Green Street Green retains its unique close community environment. It is a pity there was not more promotion of the fair. Perhaps some bunting along the road edge and posters advertising the event in advance would increase awareness. Winner of the Treasure Hunt was Mrs Tina Bradshaw, a Green Street Green resident - unfortunately the photographs taken on presentation to her were corrupted on download, so they cannot be uploaded here - many apologies.
Dot Ryder’s party on Saturday, celebrating 6 decades of commitment to the community of Green Street Green, was well attended by nearly 50 members of the Village Society, as well as Dot’s family and close friends. As she is now in the second half of her 9th decade, she felt she might be slowing down a little, so she has decided to hand over the reins of her role as hall bookings secretary. Local ward Councillor, Keith Onslow, congratulated Dot on her many years of service to the community. He stressed that Bromley Council is keen to encourage volunteering in the borough and realises the valuable contribution people like Dot make. Dot Ryder has been a stalwart member of the Green Street Green Association, more often referred to as the Village Society, since its inception. She belonged to the flower club and the wine club. She was a great wine maker - under her stairs she had a minor brewery and would always offer visitors a drink. She was hall bookings officer for the Greenwood Community Centre and performed this role very proficiently for many years. She also organised a magnificent Christmas hamper for the Christmas raffles. Dot always carried out all her duties in a very quiet way. During WWII she served in the Wrens, where she met her husband, Arthur (who died in recent years) who was in the Royal Navy as a submariner. She is still a member of the Royal British Legion and a staunch member of St Mary’s Church. She remains a very interested and loyal member of our local community; a friend to many who now visit her at home. She always welcomes visitors with a smile and, in spite of her own health problems, never complains and enjoys a good conversation. She still visits the Pop In every month for a friendly chat. Her family is very supportive, with both of her daughters, Pat and Audrey, living locally . Tony Bradley, Honorary President of Green Street Green Village Society, added his own personal memories, including annual visits to Dot’s summer garden parties at her home. Dot was then presented with two large, heart-shaped, terracotta pots containing ‘Dorothy’ rose plants, together with a card signed by everyone. Margot Rohan - Village Society Secretary Old Hill Mausoleum - travel plan submitted....(click on link to read it) In the conditions when this application was approved was the following: “No development shall take place until a Travel Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This shall include measures to reduce reliance on use of the private car including the provision of a visitor mini bus service and a programme for implementation. Thereafter the permitted use shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Travel Plan.” The application number is 15/00981/CONDIT - the decision deadline date was 6 January 2017 and the following objection was submitted: "Whatever travel plan is encouraged, people cannot be forced not to use their cars. Inevitably families intending to visit interred relatives are most likely to travel together, making car journeys much more economic. The issues of traffic and fly tipping on Old Hill will be exacerbated by this increase in vehicular movements. Weekends are likely to be the most popular time for these visitors, when the number of walkers in High Elms is at its peak, with cars parking opposite the entrance to Old Hill Farm. No travel plan can possibly be acceptable to prevent a worsening traffic situation, with increasing use of Old Hill as a cut through to Shire Lane." Bromley does not list the number of objections received but the conditions were approved in November 2016. More information about Old Hill Farm and these proposals can be found below. June 2016 Is this merely the start of a new attempt to build residential property on green belt? Local people are stunned by the inspector's decision to allow this second appeal but there do not appear to be any valid legal challenges that can be made. However, the business viability of creating a mausoleum on this relatively small site seems ludicrous. Even a small 'cheap build' outlay would involve expenditure of at least £100,000 - before any crypts are likely to be sold, as who would buy 'off plan'? Put 'interior photos of mausolea' into an internet search box and every photo shows expensive stained glass windows, marble from floor to ceiling or similar beautiful environments, which would cost considerably more. 690 crypts at £18,000 each, with the revenue spread across 99 years, raises just £125,000 per year. With four staff (as mentioned at the appeal hearing) and the cost of general maintenance, this would not leave much profit for the owners, after the outlay costs are covered. Call me cynical but I suspect another proposal is on the cards. Having now created a precedent which deems that the existing buildings are permitted and change of use has been established, a more lucrative development would be to build something else on the same footprint. Previous attempts to build a house there were refused, but that was in 1994. Now we have a housing crisis and the green belt is at risk. Another ploy used by those trying to flout building regulations is to start building (or even complete it) and make a retrospective application. However, it is not unknown for local authorities to refuse these and insist on any buildings being removed or returned to their original state. The activities of this particular land owner need to be closely observed by local residents, to ensure that the planning permission approved is not flouted. If further applications are submitted, it may be pertinent to refer to the following: "Old Hill Farm is situated within the Metropolitan Green Belt and is designated as an area of 'Special Landscape Character.' A letter received from the former Chief Architect Planner of Bromley, Mr. C J Davis, gave the following assessment of this woodland: "The land is an area of Great Landscape Value . . an important feature on the skyline and a valuable amenity to the area." (See the full information below - dated 5 August 2014) If it should happen that a future planning application is granted for a building on the same footprint, the Council could apply Article 4, which removes all permitted development rights (PDR). This would mean that no extensions or changes could be made without applying for further planning permission, whereas PDR usually allow for certain extensions up to a specific size, without planning permission. Watch this space.................! Margot Rohan - Orpington Community APPEAL ALLOWED - DECISION PUBLISHED 18 March 2016 - READ IT HERE Welcome to Old Hill Memorial Park - BEFORE - slide show around the site as it was on 16 February 2016, apart from the back, behind the buildings, which is a quagmire - but proposed to be a quiet meditation area with seating for visitors: and AFTER - with a green roof, a water feature, with a little bridge over it, in front of the main building, the hedge round the grassed area cut down to waist height and an avenue of trees on the outside edge of the drive into the site - ask Bill Heasman to see the CGI video: 16 February 2016 At the Appeal hearing, held in Committee Room 1 from 10 am today, at Bromley Civic Centre, the inspector, David Smith, stated that the main planning issues were: 1. The previous appeal decision 2. The effect of the development on highway safety on Old Hill In mitigation, the appellant argued that conditions could be imposed as follows:
Jonathan Taylor, a local resident of Old Hill, spoke eloquently, raising several relevant planning considerations:
At the site visit, which followed in the afternoon, the inspector expressed misgivings over the plans for parking spaces, which would have involved the removal of a bank and trees which are not within the site and have TPOs on them. He took care to inspect the whole of the site, paying particular attention to the parking provision and sight lines when exiting the site onto Old Hill. During the visit, it was apparent that Old Hill is busy with traffic, even when not at peak times, with cars passing the location at regular intervals, with no more than a minute between them and often in twos and threes. My personal opinion is that, although the CGI video shows a very attractive site, it will take a substantial investment to bring it up to an acceptable standard BEFORE any prospective purchasers are likely to consider buying crypts. Based on £18,000 per crypt (mentioned at the hearing), this would provide a total income of £12.42m over 99 years or approximately £125,000 pa. With 4 staff and other overheads, this would not generate enough revenue to repay the investment and give a reasonable return e.g. with £1m outlay, the annual return would only be 1-1.5% and less for a larger investment. Margot Rohan - Orpington Community 30 December 2015 The inspectorate has confirmed that there will be an informal hearing which is open to members of the public (interested parties) to attend. The hearing will open at 10:00am on 16 February 2016. The venue is: Bromley Civic Centre Stockwell Close Bromley Kent BR1 3UH Please email: [email protected] to confirm if you wish to attend the hearing so that the Inspector can be notified of your attendance. 25 December 2015 A local resident of Beechwood Avenue has a copy of a very interesting Appeal Dismissal document - the inspector's decision (which unfortunately is not online) - relating to a refusal to grant permission for change of use at Old Hill Farm in 1997. Prior to 1988, the owner of the land at that time had put up the two agricultural buildings without planning permission, which are still there, despite an independent assessment which pointed out they were 'excessive' and economically unviable. The latter proved the case as the owner in 1995 applied for retrospective permission for change of use to renovate cars, which was refused and subsequently went to appeal. This site has a continuing history of attempts to encroach on the green belt and change the environment forever, to the detriment of local amenities. It is important for local residents to protest and ensure this area is preserved as part of the green belt, bordering on a conservation area of particular interest, including habitats of some endangered species. Watch this space regarding the 'event' on 16 February - details of what, where and when will be posted here as soon as ascertained. Margot Rohan, Orpington Community 11 December 2015 No update yet, following end of the consultation period on 13 November. However, the appeal webpage shows: 'Event date: 16 February 2016'. Does this mean there will be a public event? The Decision date shows 'Not yet decided'.
However, if the inspector has the commonsense one expects, this appeal will be dismissed on the same grounds as previously, since the highways issues have not been addressed. The applicant has merely made minor additions to the original (first) application in a superficial attempt to hoodwink the unsuspecting into believing this development could be acceptable. This application in no way addresses the issues the inspector raised on the first appeal, namely: 1. 'the scheme would be harmful to the free and safe movement of vehicles and pedestrians in that vicinity' 2. A planning condition to monitor off street parking 'would be imprecise and, moreover, would accept the principle of the development, irrespective of future traffic implications' 3. 'The appellant refers to a relatively sustainable location, but my assessment is that opportunities for sustainable transport appear limited.' In order to ensure the inspector realises the strength of opposition to this development, local residents still need to submit as many objections as possible, highlighting valid material considerations - valid planning reasons - as to why this is inappropriate, particularly focusing on the impact on traffic and parking. Click on the following link to access the Appeal submission and submit comments: Planning Portal Appeal 3133230 Margot Rohan - 'Orpington Community' and Secretary of Green Street Green Village Society 30 July 2015 This application was considered at Plans Sub Committee No.2 on 30 July. The officer's Report recommended REFUSAL on the following grounds: "The proposal, in the absence of any suitably justified information to demonstrate otherwise, and in view of the lack of viable alternatives to car-borne travel within what is a relatively unsustainable location, would give rise to potentially unsafe conditions on the public highway by reason of uncontrolled and potentially indiscriminate parking on the local highway network, contrary to Policy T18 of the Unitary Development Plan." This second application was virtually identical to the previous refused one, which was dismissed on appeal on the grounds of highways issues. There were minor tweaks to reduce the capacity and address the highways issues but they were not considered adequate and there was no evidence to support the applicant's estimated figures for traffic and visitors to the site. The Committee voted 6 in favour of the officer's recommendation and 1 against, so the application was REFUSED. The site plan can be viewed here. Margot Rohan - Orpington Community (See leaflet produced by Old Hill Residents' Association for more information) 20 July 2015 - 15/00981/FULL3 Old Hill Farm 'new' application The March re-application for converting these relatively inobtrusive farm buildings into a mausoleum will be decided at Plans Sub-Committee No.2 on Thursday 30 July at 7pm in Bromley Civic Centre. Unfortunately Bromley Council's version of democracy does not include advising objectors when a planning application is scheduled for a Committee meeting. (Croydon Council is much more helpful - I know because I manage their Planning Committees!). The main reason for refusal and dismissal at appeal was on the grounds of highways issues. Old Hill is a narrow, winding, one-way country lane. This 'new' application does not adequately address these matters and is virtually identical to the one previously refused. Bromley Council could have declined to make a decision, which is acceptable under national planning guidelines, where repeat applications are submitted (see here - paragraphs 56-59). This would have resulted in the automatic withdrawal of the application. Instead of that, the Council has taken four months to bring it to Committee - in the middle of the summer holiday period. Is someone deliberately trying to avoid having a large contingent of local objectors attending the meeting - or am I being too cynical? However, no account seems to have been taken of the area in which it sits. It is the centre of a conservation area and habitat for several endangered species in High Elms and Ramus Woods. The existing agricultural buildings should never have been built, but Bromley Council failed to carry out enforcement to have them removed, so now they remain. Unfortunately Mr Heasman is determined to enrich himself by developing the land and has submitted several applications, including one for change of use to residential, to build a 4-bedroomed house, which was refused and dismissed on appeal. With regard to his latest attempts, it raises the question of what will happen to maintenance of the mausoleum and surrounding grounds once all the crypts and spaces have been sold. Will Mr Heasman and his partner, Mr Waheed continue to keep the site in good condition? If not, Bromley Council are ignoring the financial risk they face should they 'take the money and run', leaving a deteriorating site, with relatives of the deceased inhabitants looking to the local authority to take appropriate action. Have the Committee Members actually visited Old Hill Farm? It beggars belief that, if they have, they would even consider granting permission for this outrageous development on green belt land. It would also send out a message that green belt land can be developed by evading planning legislation and eroding objections over time by repeated applications for inappropriate buildings which are strongly opposed by local residents. Margot Rohan - Orpington Community 10 April 2015 Springhill Cemetery (of which Aamer Waheed is a director) has provided the information that the cost of a plot there is £1525 for a 99 year lease, which can be spread over an interest free payment plan! This works out at £1,052,250 for 690 plots i.e. £10,629 pa for maintenance (staff costs, business rates (?), water, electricity etc). Looking at funeral costs generally, £1525 seems very low e.g. Bedford Borough Council charges indicate considerably more for burial in a mausoleum, with ‘exclusive burial rites for 75 years’. The Old Hill Farm proposal is definitely not a financially sustainable development, unless they plan on charging considerably more, in which case sales are likely to be quite slow….. The Council needs to realise that, if a long term business plan is not part of the application, the development could be unviable in the future and the site abandoned, leaving it for the local authority to clear up the mess! How can Bromley Council say this is not a material planning consideration when it is a future financial risk for the local authority? Margot Rohan - Orpington Community 10 April 2015 Highways and accessibility issues Below are photos taken on 10 April by David Hewitt, a resident of Old Hill, showing the pedestrian access to Old Hill Farm and the congested parking on Old Hill and at its junction with Cudham Lane North (click on images to enlarge): Objections submitted by Margot Rohan: Objection 1: This application is almost identical to the previous one, 13/03699/FULL2, with minor changes: 1. 37 parking spaces (from 25) 2. Provision of a minibus to transport visitors within a one mile radius 3. Resurfacing of local footpaths The changes do not address the issues raised by the Inspector dismissing the previous appeal. The Inspector stated that: 1. 'the scheme would be harmful to the free and safe movement of vehicles and pedestrians in that vicinity' 2. A planning condition to monitor off street parking 'would be imprecise and, moreover, would accept the principle of the development, irrespective of future traffic implications' 3. 'The appellant refers to a relatively sustainable location, but my assessment is that opportunities for sustainable transport appear limited.' In addition, no consideration appears to have been given to the long term financial risk to the local authority. Once all the crypts have been leased, there will be no further income for the company and therefore incentive to continue to maintain the site will diminish. In years to come, if the owners fail to maintain the buildings and land, the onus will fall on the local authority to resolve the problem which could involve lengthy and expensive legal costs. Objection 2: Further to my previous objection, I wish to stress that I would urge the Council to decline to determine this repeat application, as set out in Planning Practice Guidance, paragraphs 56-59. The speed with which the applicant submitted this almost identical application shows his true motives in virtually ignoring the issues raised by the Council’s refusal and by the inspector dismissing the appeal. His complete disregard for planning legislation is clear by his history of erecting illegal buildings on this green belt land for which, unfortunately, the Council failed to implement enforcement procedures. If the Council exercises its discretion by refusing to determine the application, and gives notice that it is acting under s.70A(1) and (3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the applicant is not able to appeal - the application is treated as having been withdrawn (section 78(1) and 78(2), Town and Country Planning Act 1990). The applicant can only challenge this decision by what is called, "judicial review", on the basis that no reasonable authority would have exercised its discretion in this way. 6 April 2015 Despite the appeal dismissal, Bill Heasman and Aamer Waheed* seem intent on pursuing their 'get rich quick' scheme to develop a mausoleum by cladding the garden shed buildings on Old Hill Farm and selling 690 spaces for people to place their loved ones' bodies and some smaller vaults for 'interments'. It is difficult to see how this can possibly be a financially sustainable operation. How will the mausoleum be funded to maintain it once all the spaces have been sold and there is no further income from the site? The new application documents can be viewed online: Search box (Insert 15/00981/FULL3). The only apparent changes are: 1. An increase in parking spaces (from 25 to 37) 2. The addition of a minibus to transport visitors within a one mile radius Margot Rohan - Orpington Community * See articles online: Plots snapped up for private cemeteries (Dec 2012) Walsall cemetery plans relaunched (Feb 2014) Despite appeal dismissal cemetery campaigners fear the 'war' will continue (July 2014) See the website: Springhill Business Services Ltd A Companies House check revealed that this company was incorporate on 22 September 2010 (£100 capital!) and the directors are Aamer Waheed and Zafreen Bibi. However it is listed as a 'dormant company'! The directors of Serenity Interment Services Ltd are Aamer Waheed and Bill Heasman, with Zafreen Bibi and Mrs Jacqueline Heasman as company secretaries. 16 February 2015 - Appeal dismissed The inspectorate made a site visit on 26 January. Finally, today, the decision was published - the appeal has been dismissed. The principle of the mausoleum is not in question but the highway issues have led to this decision. The full report can be downloaded here. 9 September 2014 Darnley Mausoleum is situation in Cobham Wood - a recently restored 18th century building - somewhat different to the proposal for Old Hill Farm. It is a Grade I listed building, now owned by the National Trust. Designed by James Wyatt, for the 4th Earl of Darnley, it is beautifully set in woodland and restoration was completed in 2013. It is part of a larger scheme to restore Cobham Park to the original designs of Humphry Repton and return Cobham Woods to a managed wood pasture. It is a pity that Old Hill Farm cannot be returned to its original natural state, without the buildings which never had planning permission but were left too long for enforcement to be instigated. The appeal decision is still awaited, having been advised that 'a decision is unlikely before September'. What is taking so long?? Margot Rohan - Orpington Community 24 August 2014 The current (undeveloped) Old Hill Farm site, from the footpath on Old Hill, which goes through Ramus Wood (to the left off the photos). The single storey roof can just be seen behind the far hedge, in the middle of the photos below: 5 August 2014 The following is information provided by Michael Parson of Dover, whose parents still live in the Beechwood Estate: "Old Hill Farm is situated within the Metropolitan Green Belt and is designated as an area of 'Special Landscape Character.' A letter received from the former Chief Architect Planner of Bromley, Mr. C J Davis, gave the following assessment of this woodland: "The land is an area of Great Landscape Value . . an important feature on the skyline and a valuable amenity to the area." A short history of this woodland may provide some insight into why its preservation is a worthy cause. This landscape represents a nostalgic link with the the past; archive maps stored at Bromley Central Library give evidence of the continuous existence of Ramus Wood since the year 1871. "The conservation area surrounding the farm, known as Ramus Wood, supports a very pleasing diversity of wild plants and bird life, including tree-creepers and greater spotted woodpeckers, which have been observed there. The occurrence of wood anemone here, which forms carpets of flowers in a number of places, is an indicator of ancient woodland and includes other species such as bluebells. There are two plants that are known to be relatively scarce: the spurge laurel and the parasitic orchid, also known as toothwort. A Planning Inspector's report has already been made on this area of metropolitan green belt and it was observed that, in accordance with Green Belt Policy G12, the aim should be to conserve, improve and enhance the site. The Beechwood Residents' Association has been making objections about the inappropriate use of Old Hill Farm since 1984, when the land was put to commercial use. The reason for this is that the amenities of local residents have been undermined by the activities of the land owners over the last three decades. Clearly this is an unacceptable state of affairs." This is pertinent evidence which, hopefully, will be taken into consideration by the Planning Inspectorate when making a decision on the appeal, if it is still possible to submit information this long after the submission deadline. Margot Rohan - Orpington Community 27 July 2014 LATEST UPDATE: The planning inspectorate have indicated that no decision is likely to be made until September. However another appeal has been dismissed for change of use of green belt land to a cemetery, near Walsall. This decision confirms that there is now a more stringent test on developing anything on green belt land. Read the Walsall Appeal Decision.
Below are some of the planning reasons which the inspectorate should take into consideration: - Although the existing buildings have been on the property for some years, they were originally constructed without planning permission. Unfortunately Bromley Council had never applied enforcement when more recent planning applications were received and refused and it was then too late; - Although the existing buildings are of a permanent nature, they are typical of agricultural units and not of the substantial construction needed to make them capable of re-use as a mausoleum. The structures would only be capable of housing the proposed facility after very extensive alteration (either through cladding or re-building) and this would amount to major reconstruction and not merely re-use of existing buildings; - The development is incorrectly described as a change of use of agricultural buildings to a mausoleum - it is better described as a change of use of agricultural land to a mausoleum, which includes widened access to the site, car parking, landscaping, a concourse and extensively reconstructed buildings; - The use of this land for the purposes of a mausoleum is totally inappropriate on green belt land as the site is surrounded by High Elms SMI conservation site which the Greater London Authority can provide, in relation to its coverage of Old Hill Farm. Land on the High Elms SMI has been cleared of trees some time ago, right down to the footpath which runs east to west and this is the proposed site of the car park of 607 square metres for 20 cars. The visibility splay (sight line by clearance of trees in an area of 2.4 metres width by 51 metres length) along the road, is also on the High Elms SMI conservation site; - The conservation area surrounding Old Hill Farm, particularly Ramus Wood, is an area of special character and there is a blanket tree protection order (TPO) on the woodland. It is also home to a variety of wildlife, some of which are protected, such as roe deer, badgers, spotted woodpeckers, dormice and bumble bees; - The Greater London Authority (GGL - Greenspace for Greater London) recommends that an application on a site which is adjacent to a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation, be rejected if it does not include a biodiversity report, which was not part of the application papers; - There are significant highways implications if change of use were to be granted. Old Hill is a narrow lane and one way once the houses are passed (before Old Hill Farm). Traffic travelling down Cudham Lane North has of way and any cortege trying to get into Old Hill will be further delayed by traffic coming towards the A21 roundabout from that direction. This could lead to traffic tailbacks onto the roundabout which would cause mayhem at peak times. There is also the potential for overspill of car parking onto Old Hill, which would cause further nuisance and inconvenience to other road users; - The development is unsustainable since, once all the ‘plots’ have been sold, there is no means of income, so how would the applicant obtain funds to continue maintenance of the site? If the site should therefore fall into disrepair, responsibility would eventually fall to the local authority and this would have significant cost implications. Margot Rohan - Orpington Community 26 April 2014 The applicant, Bill Heasman, has lodged an appeal against Bromley Council's decision to refuse his planning application for change of use at Old Hill Farm from agricultural buildings to a mausoleum. The Appellant's Statement of Case can be downloaded here. Local residents in Old Hill are ready for battle and have been amassing information on mausolea - and the related issues. The applicant is in partnership with Mr Aamer Waheed, who has submitted numerous applications for cemeteries and crematoria in the Midlands and an almost identical proposal for a mausoleum in Lichfield. The latter also went to appeal and has been dismissed. The inspector's decision can be downloaded here. The Planning Inspectorate's reference number is 2216675. Comments can be submitted by 28 May, either by email to: [email protected] or online, by clicking on the 'Comment on this case' link at the bottom of the Case Summary (above 'LPAs only') Information about when and where the appeal will take place will be posted here, as soon as available. 20 February 2014 At Bromley Council's Plans Sub 2 Committee on 20 February, this application drew a lot of interested public attention. Together with another application (recommended for refusal) for developing the Porcupine Public House in Mottingham Village into a Lidl supermarket, objectors opposing both these plans packed the public gallery in the Council Chamber at the Civic Centre.. The Lidl application was considered first. Mr Chris Young-Wootton from Lidl spoke first, justifying the application but the chair of Mottingham Residents' Association, Bob Neill MP and ward member Cllr Charles Rideout all spoke strongly in objection and commended the planning officer for his excellent report. The committee voted unanimously to refuse permission on this application. The Old Hill Farm application was considered second. Local resident, Mr Jonathan Taylor spoke first in objection. It then transpired that a new agent had replaced Mr Gary Acton of Cadman Design Ltd and he defended the reasons for the application. The chair of the committee, Cllr Russell Jackson, questioned the agent about traffic issues and a modelling survey which had been carried out. The ward member, Cllr Richard Scoates was a member of the committee and spoke strongly in favour of refusing the application (which was recommended for approval) and proposed refusal. Cllr Simon Fawthrop supported Cllr Scoates' concerns and seconded refusal. Cllr Jackson suggested inappropriate use of the green belt could be used as grounds for refusal. The planning officer explained that reuse of the buildings would not impact significantly on local residents but it might be argued that the change of use will have a detrimental impact on the green belt. Cllr Peter Dean proposed approval, suggesting that there were not sufficient planning grounds for refusal. Cllr Kathy Bance seconded approval. However, Cllr Jackson stressed highways issues as Old Hill is a very narrow one-way country lane. Cllr Lydia Buttinger expressed support for local concerns. She made the point that granting permission would set a precedent as there is no previous experience of such a development. There is no policy in the UDP for mausoleums, so this application would be setting one. Having been seconded first, the motion to refuse was voted on, resulting in 5 in favour and 4 against, so the application was REFUSED. 16 February 2014 I wonder if other objectors received notification that this application will be considered at Plans Sub 2 Committee on 20 February? Despite the Council website still stating that 'due to resource implications the Council does not notify applicants, agents, neighbours or any other parties of expected decision dates for applications', I received an email this week advising me that it is on the 20 February agenda. I hope it was not because I am raising a Council question at the next Council meeting on 24 February, querying why the Council has this undemocratic attitude. It disadvantages some sections of the community which may raise objections and not have easy access to finding out when an application is put on a planning agenda. The proposed elevations do not indicate any improvement on the existing commercial sheds and resemble neither ancient nor more modern mausolea. The definition of a mausoleum is 'a stately and magnificent tomb' and 'usually a stone building with places for entombment of the dead above ground'. The proposed buildings do not match this description. The Design and Access Statement relates much history of ancient mausolea and tries to 'soften the blow' of the impact of such a development by proposing additional tree planting and water features. Mausolea are usually built to last hundreds of years but timber cladding will require constant replacement and is totally out of character for this type of building. Would you put your deceased relative in a building resembling a garden shed? 'The facility would create up to 1000 burial crypts. These would also include smaller vaults known as ‘Columbarium’ which would be used to house internments.' However, these would soon be filled and there would not be room for many interments (internment is confinement or imprisonment, not burial!), unless the intention is to create underground vaults. Apart from that, a columbarium is a vault with niches for funeral urns, not burials of bodies. Since this is clearly a commercial operation, surely there will be a desire to expand at a later date and this would be a further undesirable incursion on the green belt. The statement also mentions 'the mausoleum would cater for all faiths' but that would mean segregation, as some faiths would not be comfortable being buried in close proximity with those of other faiths. It should be noted that Old Hill Farm has an interesting planning history. It originally formed part of Ramus Wood, on which there is an outstanding planning application for building a 5-bedroomed property. In 1982, 14.5 acres were sold to W R and J A Bland, of Bexley, who proceeded to clear the land for agricultural use. In 1987 and 1988 two barns were erected (without planning permission). In 1994, they submitted a planning application for change of use to residential and to erect a 4-bedroomed home. Fortunately, it was refused and the appeal decision upheld this, taking into account that the original barns were not permitted development, although the council did not take any enforcement action to have them removed.
In 1995, part of the site was used for renovation of motor vehicles and storage and repair of air conditioning equipment but retrospective planning applications were refused. However, in 2000, planning permission was granted to allow the barns to be used by tree surgeons, arboricultural and landscape contractors. Strangely, on the planning application form, the applicant, Mr Bill Heasman (of Old Hill Farm), ticked the 'Yes' box for 'are you an agent acting on behalf of the applicant?' and also indicated that the agent (not the applicant) should be contacted regarding site visits. Confusion reigns, particularly since it has emerged that Mr Bill Heasman and Mrs Jacqueline Heasman were, respectively, a director and company secretary of Westland Estates (Address Old Hill Farm) from 2002 until November 2011. Westland Estates has a website and the company offers cleaning and gardening services. Valley Tree Surgeons Ltd have the same telephone number (and address) and Mr Heasman was a director until November 2011. Mr James Kelly is currently a director of both companies and also Halo Executive Ltd ('private security activities' but no website) and Westland Holdings, which was incorporated in August 2011. All these companies are registered at the Old Hill Farm address. So, the question is on what basis is Bill Heasman claiming to be the applicant at that address when, apparently, he is no longer a director of any of the companies listed at Old Hill Farm? Does he own the land? The ward Councillor, Richard Scoates (Darwin), has registered an objection to this application. The decision will be made at the Plans sub 2 committee on 20 February. Councillor Scoates will be on the Plans Sub Committee on that date and is likely to propose refusal of this application. If anyone wishes to express their objection to this planning application, please click on the following link: Submit an objection From that link, all details of the application and related documents can be accessed. If objectors wish to register to speak at the planning committee, they need to do so by 10am on the day prior to the meeting date. Information on speaking at planning committee can be downloaded here.
Biggin Hill Airport - 25 November decision called in for review by Scrutiny on 5 January 201627/12/2015 27 December 2015 The Executive & Resources Policy Development & Scrutiny Committee called in the Executive's decision on 14 December. The Agenda for the meeting on 5 January was published on 23 December. Following the publication of Report No. DRR15/097i and prior to the Executive meeting on 25 November, where the proposals were agreed, Bob Trott (a retired senior air traffic controller) submitted the following statement to Bromley Council: BIGGIN HILL AIRPORT LTD – LEASE CHANGE APPLICATION It must seem fairly obvious from comments of the general public that there is a considerable surge of opposition to the extension of the hours that could potentially cause noise intrusion early in the morning and late in the evening. Many of the suggested advantages to both the public and the LBB are either perceptions or promises rather than specific undertakings and, bearing this in mind along with the objections to the noise concerns, there surely has to be a compromise. Few will want to see the loss of potential for BHAL to both thrive and expand, if any of the aspects can be guaranteed, whilst mitigating the noise as much as possible, but surely there has to be some leeway in the final decision on days/times approved? This invariably means that, despite some laudable ideas in the NAP[i] (Final), most people would not want the hours agreed as requested. My own view – which has already been stated in previous submissions to the Airport Consultation Group – would be 0700/2230. I have no personal objection to weekends/Public Holidays being any different, although many local residents want limitations and the Airport seems to accept this rationale. My reasons for the above, along with general comments on the Report, are as follows:-
As a consequence of the foregoing, in the absence of the full information required to understand how aircraft operations will change from those currently experienced, I do not think it is either fair or possible to determine the application pending the full data being published. NOTES: [i] Noise Abatement Procedures [ii] Instrument Flight Rules [iii] Aeronautical Information Publication [iv] Noise Monitoring and Track Keeping System [v] Visual Flight Rules [vi] Combined radio navigation station for aircraft [vii] National Air Traffic Services [viii] Residential Sound Insulation System [ix] International Civil Aviation Organisation [x] Noise Preferential Routes 17 October 2015 FlightpathWatch is encouraging residents to attend the Executive on Wednesday 25 November at 7pm in the Great Hall at the Civic Centre, where Bromley Council's final decision on the proposals for extending operating hours at Biggin Hill Airport will take place. Anyone wishing to put questions to Members at the meeting should submit them by 5pm on Thursday 19 November - they can be emailed to: [email protected] or posted to Democratic Services, London Borough of Bromley, Civic Centre, Stockwell Close, Bromley BR1 3UH. More information also on Orpington Community website. 29 May 2015 - State of the art Noise and Track Monitoring system demonstrated On 27 May, Biggin Hill Airport invited Bromley councillors, residents' associations and residents to a presentation from Bruel & Kjaer, a Danish company specialising in airport noise management solutions. Jesper Simondsen explained how their software monitors aircraft noise and compliance. Data quality is analysed to ensure validity - but this would not be an issue at Biggin Hill as there is only one runway. In the 'Investigate and Process' system, rules can be entered - noise levels, flight path corridors - and the system notifies any non-compliance. There is also a 'Review and Report' section which produces monthly reports with comparisons with previous periods. The system can be filtered to monitor specific flights and can calculate how close flights are to a specific house. Analysis can be carried out on multiple aircraft. A particular flight path can be exported into Google Earth to provide a visual picture in 3D. Noise monitors are mainly placed under the flight track but can be positioned in sensitive spots, such as schools and no fly zones. The system can detect if aircraft are using continuous descent operation (CDO), which reduces noise, as there is less thrust. Noise events are recorded and can be investigated to identify if they are caused by aircraft or otherwise (traffic, lawnmowers, other machines). The system allows for a much quicker response to complaints and accurate information. All enquiries can be entered in the system and investigations carried out quickly. Enquiries and complaints can be mapped so that an area where there is an intensity of complaints can be monitored more closely. Biggin Hill Airport (BAH) will be agreeing the details about maximum allowable noise levels, the siting of noise monitors and the scope of the flight paths with Bromley Council but there is still at least a couple of weeks for residents to give feedback on their concerns and suggestions. An assurance was given that only aircraft of Stage 3 and above (more modern ones with reduced noise levels) will be allowed to use the airport. Public access to the system will also be agreed, once conditions have been discussed. BAH is 'ready to go' and hopes to install the system as soon as possible. The importance of transparency and being able to provide the public with accurate data was emphasised. BAH were keen to reassure local residents of their commitment to ensure aircraft flying in and out of the airport are compliant and infringements will be dealt with effectively. Will Curtis was unfortunately unwell and unable to attend the meeting but stated today that 'once the Council finalises arrangements arrangements, we will place a firm order and install the system before we actually extend the operating hours.' Margot Rohan, Orpington Community 25 March 2015 Consultation now over. Decision taken at Full Council on 25 March. Below is the link to the extensive consultation carried out by an independent consultation company in November 2014: Biggin Hill Future Consultation Report. Link to Biggin Hill Airport website See also Orpington Community website article here Some further thoughts from Bob Trott, Chair of Green Street Green Village Society & retired senior air traffic controller There are two items of particular interest, both on the question of noise. Firstly the Council Noise Consultant, Cole Jarman, is quoted as having expertise in aviation but, regarding para 3.52 and 3.61 of Marc Hume’s Report DRR15/035, the following comments need consideration: 1. If noise is a concern, then the earlier times for Saturdays and Sundays should be applied to weekdays as well. If sleep is being disturbed then surely weekday nights, when most ‘office hours’ workers will be affected, should be taken into account. In addition, GSG residents are likely to be affected by departures and a 2300 take off at any time – especially when using the preferred runway 21 – which will not be limited to the airport hours, as the time over the village is going to be even later when the aircraft track of around 6 or 7 miles is taken into account. Despite the assurance from Will Curtis that he has discovered why IFR departures are tracking north of GSG when they should be to the south of the village and over ‘open’ land, this still regularly occurs. BRAAD has advised me that some departures go over Locksbottom and, whilst I cannot comment on this as ‘fact’ (and I would be surprised if it is correct), I have certainly seen some go over the centre of Orpington. 2. (As explained in an email to LBB) The ‘no fly zone’ as described is not legally enforceable, and has both only limited applicability and impact from a BHAL aspect, although it cannot be discounted for being totally ineffective. 2 March 2015
Assessment of the BHAL Consultation Proposals by Bob Trott, Chair of Green Street Green Village Society & retired senior air traffic controller I have been resident in Green Street Green (GSG) since 2012, and was well aware of the potential noise problems associated with Biggin Hill Airport (BH) – an airfield where I did some of my training for extra ratings to my Private Pilot’s Licence. I am firmly of the opinion that if you purchase a house near an airport then you are going to experience noise, although I accept that some people will claim that things have changed since they have been in residence in the area but few will have actually purchased their property prior to the airport being built. I am also currently Chairman of the Green Street Green Village Society, and we were among a number of residents’ associations approached by BHAL in the attempt to quash much of the incorrect information that was being circulated. Because of my background I wanted to pass on to the Membership via our web site and Committee Meetings, what ‘true facts’ I could derive; this is the basis of the following comments. I am generally confining my comments to the potential impact on my own life, but will also comment briefly on general topics where I feel the waters are a little muddied. I am more than happy to elaborate on any particular area that the Council may like to question, as I feel almost all the information from the opposing sides in the debate has been confusing at the least, and downright wrong in others. Invariably both sides will present information in a slant that infers interpretation towards their side of the equation, and it is very difficult for the lay person to see through the confusion. There have been some excellent points made by opposing parties in the various comments that are very relevant to the argument, but generally I feel that little meaning can be attributed to the full facts (as I see the descriptions) until many of the aspects have been made a good deal clearer than at present. Whilst not wishing to complicate matters right from the start, it is important, however, to understand what aircraft are likely to affect me, and why. There are two types of flight, one that operates under Visual Flight Rules (VFR) and the other is Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) and, although the specifics are not relevant to this discussion, any pilot has to select one system or the other, depending on the aircraft equipment fit, the pilot’s qualifications, which airspace he/she wishes to fly in, the weather situation and, finally (in some circumstances), personal preferences. Irrespective of the availability of an airport, in terms of times/days open, some of those which BHAL professes to be a competitor of are likely to restrict or even ban business type aircraft, in the same way that Heathrow has done for many years. Luton is the most likely operator to end up in this situation, bearing in mind that, although it operates 24/7, it will come under pressure from the Charter/Hub airlines to give them preference and therefore an opportunity to attract some of the displaced customers, should the facilities available match requirements. This aspect has been partially covered by the Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners’ (NLP) submission to the Mayor of London on behalf of BHAL, in its letter of the 9th of April 2014. Because of the runway configuration at BH, there is unlikely to be any IFR arrival aircraft over the village of GSG, as the procedures take them to the Dartford area and then begin descent crossing over Sidcup, Chislehurst, Petts Wood and Locksbottom before landing. However, the departing IFR traffic is routed to a navigation beacon at Detling, a few miles north east of Maidstone, and this track is just to the south of the village – unfortunately, as I write this in the middle of February, the experience has been that the great majority (if not all) of the aircraft actually fly north of track and overfly the village and the area south of Orpington. I raised this with the BHAL MD and he later advised they had found out why it was happening and would resolve it – but so far the jury is still out. VFR aircraft tend not to overfly the village, as legislation requires them to be at minimum heights over built up areas, but they are restricted vertically because of the London Airspace used by IFR aircraft - although twin engine aeroplanes and the occasional light single do so. We do, however, need to look at the suggestion that BHAL will prevent light aircraft from overflying designated areas – later amplified by saying not below 2000ft, and there are two aspects that have been associated with this potential that I have not rationalised completely. One is safety and the other noise. Safety is already covered by Aviation Law applicable to pilots, so the only rationale for the proposal can be for noise purposes. With the NATS controlled airspace having a base of 2500ft amsl, and much of the ground in the local area being up to 600ft amsl, the level of an aircraft above the ground which has to remain below what is known as ‘Controlled Airspace’ is going to be around 1800ft. It is not a simple task to ascertain the corresponding heights above ground level for the various stages of the Instrument Landing System approach without accurate contours on a map but, as an example, the aircraft will begin descent at 4 miles from touchdown (approximately the middle of the wood of Petts Wood) at 1800ft amsl and this is 1283ft above the runway touchdown point, whilst at 2 miles (Locksbottom) the figures are approx. 1205ft amsl and 688 ft agl. However, to give some idea how this impacts on residential properties, some parts of Chislehurst are above 300ft amsl, areas of Locksbottom above 400ft amsl whilst Green Street Green goes up to 450ft amsl. What complicates the matter is aviation terminology, whereby height, level, altitude and elevation all have specific meanings that the lay person might not appreciate. For BHAL to keep an aircraft above 2000ft above the ground – which as a minimum is what I suspect residents would see as desirable – may not be possible in all areas of the Borough, whilst to keep them at 2000ft amsl may mean they are actually around 1500ft above the ground – little different to what is required by Low Flying Legislation. However, there may be some advantages in achieving the proposal, but it may not be quite as good as may be perceived on first reading. In addition, one has to evaluate whether BHAL can enforce the proposal anyway – but it is not clear which reference is being quoted i.e. amsl (altitude) or agl (height). There are three aircraft circumstances that might be applicable:-
The same Licence will permit the aerodrome operator to prevent what may be perceived as a noisy aircraft type, whether or not it complies with the Chapter 3 conditions published in the Approved Category required by the lease. Consequently, a particularly large/noisy aircraft could be ‘banned’ even though it is allowed to operate there under the lease conditions, and thus (despite the claim that noise Business aircraft at 3000ft or above - again amsl or agl – is not discernible from the ground ) some of the potential clients could be excluded. The theory is debatable as, without doubt, although some small business jets might create little noise at that level, some of the potential aircraft being sought as clients will certainly be heard at, and even above, that level. Therefore a balance between income and noise is always on the agenda, and it could be that, with the stated usage of the type currently based at Biggin Hill, where, on average it has been stated, they are used once a fortnight, the decision might be to accommodate an operator – potentially leading to the occasional disturbance to residents. With more aircraft based there, this incidence of noise might become more unacceptable to some people, although personally I am unconcerned if this takes place during the times I stipulate at the end of my comments. One of the other factors that has to be taken into account is the ability of BHAL staff (or their contracted service provider) to carry out the checks and instruct pilots on the requirements. The ATC service at BH does not have its own radar facility, as this is provided by National Air Traffic Services (NATS) using ‘Thames’ or ‘City’ Radar, although there is installed a piece of equipment known as an Air Traffic Monitor (ATM) that can be used in certain circumstances to provide information to the controllers. However, this would not be their primary task (nor that of the NATS employees) and any actions on noise or overflying villages/towns would be at the bottom of any priority list of tasks. However, any action that can be taken would be advantageous, and invariably of some use in the noise concern area, albeit quite small. Whilst the headline BHAL proposals of 2300 jobs and a 50% reduction in noise is attractive to all bar the vociferous few, things are not quite as simple as first seen. There are a number of other areas of interest such as road traffic, visual intrusion, the smell of aviation fuel and a host of items described in the various documents available on the internet. I have no objections to any of the proposals other than the noise potentially coming from the extension of hours, and then only early in the morning and/or late at night. I have some empathy with some of the concerns expressed by others but, on a purely personal basis, I am remaining outwith those arguments. However, whilst most people will infer from the 50% quote that noise will be reduced by that amount (I did when I first read the proposals) what is actually said is that the noise footprint will reduce by 50% over the term of the Noise Action Plan – a markedly different kettle of fish, and generally not relevant to many residents of the LBB! My interpretation of the situation (I have had a meeting with the BHAL MD and considerable email exchanges with both the airport and BRAAD) is therefore that, although the work will take place on a general reduction in noise, the promised reduction of 50% is probably restricted to a relatively small number of people residing in an area close to the airport, even if the figure is achieved. With the BHAL interpretation of the Lease page 64 section (c) ‘ground running of aircraft’ as not applicable to taxiing aircraft, the operating hours will permit landing at exactly 2300 but, more importantly to me, a departure taking off at exactly 2300 is not going to be over my area until around a few minutes later, especially when using the predominant runway 21, with a departure at 0630 being correspondingly a little later too. However, if the wording of that clause does apply to taxiing aircraft (and my belief is that it does), then everything will change by a few minutes so as for aircraft to park and shut down/start up and taxi out for departure, in order to comply with the restriction! I accept that the number limitations offered will also seem attractive and, in practice, I very much doubt that these will ever be necessary save in strange conditions such as the sudden lifting of fog or the re-opening of the runway after a period of closure for some reason. However, for those people still/already asleep, depending on whether it is morning or night, even one such intrusion might be unacceptable although to some extent this occurs from Heathrow aircraft routing via the Biggin Hill VOR navigation aid that has nothing to do with BHAL. My personal view is that the times of operation of other airports seen as relevant to the change of times for BH are irrelevant. Yes, it is possible that someone might route to the airport should it be open when others are not, but the complications of transport both for crews and passengers who have started their journey at another location and may have left a car there, are likely to put most people off – especially late at night! Neither do I see it necessarily pertinent what times BHAL opening hours are permitted as, in practice, operational requirements will determine whether it is viable to open or not. There would be little point in providing a service that nobody wants to use, and it is this point that prevents much UK aviation policy in the attempt to persuade aircraft operators to use one of the provincial airports for international services rather than Heathrow or Gatwick. Lease amendments may therefore be allowed, only for them to end up unused. I said I would touch on some elements not specifically of interest to my residential location. The idea of increasing the Instrument Landing System (ILS) Glide Path angle that would mean the aircraft being higher over the built up areas mentioned above, associated with a lower engine power setting requirement, sounds good but, in practice, I believe it will make little difference to residents under the flight path. At seven miles out from touchdown (approx. Sidcup) traffic would be 350ft higher than at present, but over Locksbottom the difference would only be about 100ft and I doubt the human air can differentiate between minimal differences in power settings. The proposal to amend the runway 03 approach procedure, should the required airspace be made available, will invariably be advantageous to those under the ILS Localiser (the centreline alignment system) and the villages to the west of the airport. A GPS approach will also enhance the airport’s facilities; thus noise will be reduced and the airport made more attractive to users – however, this is only going to be around 20% of the time when the wind is from the east. There has been a suggestion by BRAAD to move the inbound arrival leg to the east of the ILS Localiser and thus avoid the noise sensitive areas between Sidcup and the airport, but this is completely impractical for runway 21. With regards runway 03, it does offer an alternative track if there is a navigational aid on which a route can be aligned so as to position appropriately, although ultimately this might be achievable using GPS . I do not believe it relevant to the argument whether the proposed hours are shorter or longer than other General Aviation or International airfields, and it seems to me that weekends are no different from weekdays unless it happens to be a lovely summer’s day and individuals wish to sit undisturbed in their garden. Similarly, the amount of increase, either in real terms or as a percentage is also irrelevant to the rationale of the arguments. No doubt some of these people are amongst many who loved to watch and admire one of the Concorde fleet fly over the area when they were still operating – there cannot be many who did not do this but invariably one or two who would complain! The size of the aircraft has some link to the noise created, but not necessarily a direct relationship and, although some of the aircraft might seem to be almost identical to some of those used by the commercial airlines, they may not be similar in weight or noise. One other point does not ring true. It may well be correct that, on average, there are 8 airport employees for each aircraft, but it does not necessarily follow that one additional lodger will need a further eight staff. It might do, but it actually depends on whether it is a brand new company moving there, when that might be the case, or merely an additional aircraft for a company already established there, when it may only require one or two people, if any at all – a lot depends on crewing arrangements and whether it is a new type or the same as others already based there. However, it has to be accepted that there will undoubtedly be more staff needed if the operating hours are increased, particularly where employment or aviation legislation limits the work hours allowable, but probably in general too. I do not accept the ethos of all (BHAL suggestion) or none (BRAAD inference) of any new jobs going to the local populous – I suspect it would be something in the middle of the two extremes, rather like many of the aspects being argued about. The Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners study quoting extra benefit of £230 million a year GVA by 2030 seems somewhat far-fetched when compared to the current income to the London Borough of Bromley, but again I have to admit ignorance of this sort of calculation. However, there is a distinct lack of information on the source of funding for the Aviation College and/or the move of Bromley College either in whole or in part to Biggin Hill, and any subsidy gleaned from LBB coffers. I don’t think anyone could be against extra jobs no matter who gets them, but it is a fine balancing act between this, extra revenue for both LBB and BHAL, and the noise pollution or visual intrusion that many residents may suffer. See the famous Save the Priory 'Ghost' video.... Visit Facebook pages for: Orpington Priory and Orpington History Organisation 20 March - Josie Long on Artsnight - with a section about The Priory (17:15mins) - link here: BBC Artsnight Orpington Tweet Ups featuring the future of The Priory (27 April and 6 July 2015) Orpington News article (7 April 2015) See also Orpington Community Blog |